Rojo
Sep 5 2008, 02:35 PM
Is a manual treadmill okay? If so, which one? If electric is the only way to go, which one? HELP!
koi_girl
Sep 5 2008, 04:48 PM
QUOTE (Rojo @ Sep 5 2008, 03:35 PM)

Is a manual treadmill okay? If so, which one? If electric is the only way to go, which one? HELP!
I don't know what the latest and greatest is, but I have Pro-Fit and have had it about 4 years and it's been working great. Depends on what you want to spent, etc.
BigG2008
Sep 6 2008, 01:10 PM
Not sure what your budget is but you can go to wal-mart.com and they have many under $400 and some great reviews from lots of them
Armband
Nov 13 2008, 09:13 AM
QUOTE (Rojo @ Sep 5 2008, 02:35 PM)

Is a manual treadmill okay? If so, which one? If electric is the only way to go, which one? HELP!
There's a web site called Dr Treadmill, we used it to look up the treadmill we saw at Sam's Club. It told us who really made it and their reputation, quality of bed and belt, etc. In our case it turned out this was made by a good company with a great reputation for build quality, so we got it. For us the Sams Club/Costco treadmill worked out great, 4 years later it's going strong.
We paid to have it delivered, the best $40 we spent. Let someone else do *all* the moving. :-)
God_send
Nov 13 2008, 02:19 PM
Personally I don't like the manual ones. I used one at my dad's house and the movement was not very smooth, and it staggered a bit when I would try to do any jogging. Also, I see a lot of them getting tossed up on craigslist and eBay because folks out grow them rather quickly.
The motorized ones are the bomb. When you get really good at hitting the treadmill it's fun to crank up the speed and just see how fast it pushes you to go.
Shop around and I bet you can find some great deals on motorized treadmills. Sears actually had one that my old roommate ( who was a personal trainer) used at the house. There are some that are as low as $399 at Sears. They are crosswalkers that add in handles that you can use to work out your arms as you walk. It also can be used for full on running up to 10 mph.
ProForm CrossWalk® 415 Treadmill
Keep your eye out on sales coming up for the holidays. Merchants are hurting for customers due to the economy, so prices should competitive. Also check out craigslist for your local area. Good deals on equipment can be found there as well.
I hope this helps a bit!
QUOTE (Rojo @ Sep 5 2008, 03:35 PM)

Is a manual treadmill okay? If so, which one? If electric is the only way to go, which one? HELP!
spokesnwheels
Nov 20 2008, 03:08 PM
Check out the Black Friday ads coming up for next week.... Sports Authority (dunno if there is one in your area) has a Pro-Form 380E Treadmill for $269.99.
Sports Authority Ad for the Proform TreadmillQUOTE (God_send @ Nov 13 2008, 03:19 PM)

Personally I don't like the manual ones. I used one at my dad's house and the movement was not very smooth, and it staggered a bit when I would try to do any jogging. Also, I see a lot of them getting tossed up on craigslist and eBay because folks out grow them rather quickly.
The motorized ones are the bomb. When you get really good at hitting the treadmill it's fun to crank up the speed and just see how fast it pushes you to go.
Shop around and I bet you can find some great deals on motorized treadmills. Sears actually had one that my old roommate ( who was a personal trainer) used at the house. There are some that are as low as $399 at Sears. They are crosswalkers that add in handles that you can use to work out your arms as you walk. It also can be used for full on running up to 10 mph.
ProForm CrossWalk® 415 Treadmill
Keep your eye out on sales coming up for the holidays. Merchants are hurting for customers due to the economy, so prices should competitive. Also check out craigslist for your local area. Good deals on equipment can be found there as well.
I hope this helps a bit!
Metina
Dec 16 2008, 06:54 PM
I have the body bugg and am dumbfounded as to why it shows that I burn way more calories on the trampoline than the treadmill. I feel like I am doing so much more work on the treadmill. Am I really burning more on the trampoline and is it the impact of the treadmill that is making it seem like I am doing more work.
I would post this on the bodybugg site, but they take forever to approve and post your questions.
Thanks!
rowman
Dec 17 2008, 11:02 AM
I can't comment specifically on the trampoline vs treadmill other than to say that I could see how jumping, even trampoline assisted, could be more work than walking on a treadmill, having to lift almost your entire body weight off the ground.
In general though, it takes training to learn and experience to judge how perceived work/exertion correlates with actual work. Quite often our perception of a physical limitation to how much we can work is just that, perception. A lot of overcoming mental barriers as Jillian and company talk about during the workouts is learning how to better correlate one's perception against actual work performed. The better judge of this you are, the further you can push yourself.
Just sayin'...
Jeni2009
Jan 14 2009, 07:38 PM
How do you know what kind to get? Where I live it's hard to go outside during the winter. Dh is in shape and would also like to use it. We are both tall and I want to purchase a "good" treadmill. What kind would you suggest?
Thanks!
NUMB3RS
Jan 20 2009, 09:32 PM
I have been getting back into my routine after being out for a few months. I had knee surgury and that bummed me out. Now I am feeling good and ready to make a go again. I am fine tunning my eating and am almost their with that.
My question is I have a nice treadmill what is a reasonable amount of calories to burn before it becomes useless? In other words, I do not want to over exercise. What is a good amount of calories to burn on a treadmill a day.
Serenitynoww
Jan 22 2009, 01:20 PM
I have read from a few sources 60 minutes is the threshold where you stop maximizing fat/calorie burning. You will still burn but not as much. 45 to 60 minutes seems to be the magic #.
If you wanted to say work out 2 hours in a day you would be better off with two 60 minute workouts.
Its not really a question of carlories because so much goes into that equation. You should also focus on more getting in shape using the treadmill as a tool to get in shape - not burning an x amount of calories per session.
JustAnotherThought
Jan 22 2009, 01:40 PM
That is really interesting. I guess I had never thought about it that way.
VERY interesting!!!!
NUMB3RS
Jan 23 2009, 08:35 AM
QUOTE (Serenitynoww @ Jan 22 2009, 01:20 PM)

I have read from a few sources 60 minutes is the threshold where you stop maximizing fat/calorie burning. You will still burn but not as much. 45 to 60 minutes seems to be the magic #.
If you wanted to say work out 2 hours in a day you would be better off with two 60 minute workouts.
Its not really a question of carlories because so much goes into that equation. You should also focus on more getting in shape using the treadmill as a tool to get in shape - not burning an x amount of calories per session.
Very good information, thank you!
26171
Feb 10 2009, 12:45 PM
Intersting, I had always heard the opposite. The first 30 minutes of aerobic exercise burn whatever cheap, "sugar" or carbohydrate calories you have at your disposal in your body. After that is when you start to burn off fat. Maybe it's not as many calories, but you are burning fat which is ultimately the goal, right?
Serenitynoww
Feb 10 2009, 03:44 PM
QUOTE (26171 @ Feb 10 2009, 01:45 PM)

Intersting, I had always heard the opposite. The first 30 minutes of aerobic exercise burn whatever cheap, "sugar" or carbohydrate calories you have at your disposal in your body. After that is when you start to burn off fat. Maybe it's not as many calories, but you are burning fat which is ultimately the goal, right?
Their are two arguments - one is to go at a lower heart rate which is a fat burning hear rate. Think of exercising at a level 6
The other argument is one exercising at a higher heart rate which is more of a cardio zone. Think of exercising at a level 8.
Now argument one would burn more fat during the specific exercise. However, your body would quickly recover from this and that would be it until you exercise tomorrow.
With argument 2 - your body would be pushed and you would burn more fat after training. Also you would notice the next exercise that your wind is better which means you would be able to go at a faster rate to reach that level 8. Essentially you are getting in better cardio shape each time. Once you are in top shape you will burn fat much easier over the course of a day.
I know that Jillian, Dr H, and Tom Venuto are proponents of argument 2. However there are alot of trainers who would have you buy a heart rate monitor (not body bug) and stick to the fat burning zone. It would definitely rank in the top 5 arguments in the fitness world.
Both methods do work but I think argument 2 gets your there faster and has more side effect benefits of being in better shape in the long run.
oskiouioui
Feb 16 2009, 03:08 AM
QUOTE (Serenitynoww @ Jan 22 2009, 01:20 PM)

I have read from a few sources 60 minutes is the threshold where you stop maximizing fat/calorie burning. You will still burn but not as much. 45 to 60 minutes seems to be the magic #.
If you wanted to say work out 2 hours in a day you would be better off with two 60 minute workouts.
Its not really a question of carlories because so much goes into that equation. You should also focus on more getting in shape using the treadmill as a tool to get in shape - not burning an x amount of calories per session.
I also think the mental and recovery aspect is huge when you are setting workout durations, especially if you are not a seasoned athlete.
The best workout schedule is a schedule that you can be confident you will keep. If you are too ambitious with your plans, there is a risk of undermining your motivation when you confront the difficulties of executing that plan.
I agree it is more useful to view the treadmill as a tool for getting in shape, rather than a calorie burning machine. To me, that means measuring your performance and setting performance goals rather than "calorie burn" goals. Goals can be very simple: e.g. "move for 30 continuous minutes at any speed". Typical goals are a combination of time and distance, e.g. "run 4 miles at a rate of 12 minutes per mile". If you have a heartrate monitor, it can be extremely useful because it lets you see the changes in your fitness as your program progresses from week to week. In particular, as you become more fit, you will need to run faster in order to raise your heartrate to a given level. Consult your doctor, etc, etc, but what you will find is that if you use a heartrate monitor, you will discover different heartrate ranges that correspond to levels of subjective exertion that you can identify by how they feel. This means that if have kept a log of your heartrate data and a note to yourself about how each workout felt, then when you want a particular workout to be "easy" you can pick a target heartrate that you know based on your workout history corresponds to what feels "easy" to you. This can help you take the guesswork out of "pacing yourself" during the workout: simply run at whatever speed will hold you within a certain range of your target heart rate.
While it can be worthwhile to optimize, the most important "optimization" you can do is to ensure you are doing workouts of a duration and intensity that will not demoralize you or leave you feeling so beat up and/or drained that you dread your next session.
I think it is better to pick a less ambitious schedule (picking a figure out of thin air, say, 20 or 30 minutes per day). Stick with that for two weeks. If after two weeks you still think it is too easy, try increasing the daily duration by 15 minutes.
Most people I know would find it tedious to spend more than 1 hour on the treadmill at a time, regardless of where the "sweet spot" is for fat burning. I know I personally would dread and avoid treadmill workouts if I expected myself to spend 2 hours on the treadmill each time. Psychologically, I think 60 minutes is a sensible upper limit for most people. Consider also that hydration, sweat buildup in socks and shoes, and other subtle factors can come into play when you get into protracted training sessions. If I had to spend two hours on the treadmill per day, I'd split it into a 1 hour session in the morning and a 1 hour session in the evening. I would also schedule a 48 hour break from running somwhere in my week so my body could recover and heal. When the miles add up, the risk of injury increases, so including adequate rest becomes very important.
DrKing
Feb 16 2009, 08:31 PM
QUOTE (26171 @ Feb 10 2009, 12:45 PM)

Intersting, I had always heard the opposite. The first 30 minutes of aerobic exercise burn whatever cheap, "sugar" or carbohydrate calories you have at your disposal in your body. After that is when you start to burn off fat. Maybe it's not as many calories, but you are burning fat which is ultimately the goal, right?
It's 20-40 minutes before you hit that fat burning range. Even then there is a lot of argument about how effectively it burns fat. The other thing to remember is that the machines are usually off on the calories burned.
QUOTE (Serenitynoww @ Feb 10 2009, 03:44 PM)

Their are two arguments - one is to go at a lower heart rate which is a fat burning hear rate. Think of exercising at a level 6
The other argument is one exercising at a higher heart rate which is more of a cardio zone. Think of exercising at a level 8.
Now argument one would burn more fat during the specific exercise. However, your body would quickly recover from this and that would be it until you exercise tomorrow.
With argument 2 - your body would be pushed and you would burn more fat after training. Also you would notice the next exercise that your wind is better which means you would be able to go at a faster rate to reach that level 8. Essentially you are getting in better cardio shape each time. Once you are in top shape you will burn fat much easier over the course of a day.
I know that Jillian, Dr H, and Tom Venuto are proponents of argument 2. However there are alot of trainers who would have you buy a heart rate monitor (not body bug) and stick to the fat burning zone. It would definitely rank in the top 5 arguments in the fitness world.
Both methods do work but I think argument 2 gets your there faster and has more side effect benefits of being in better shape in the long run.
I would like to add a 3rd category which is interval training. I have used interval training in the past and it is much more effective at burning fat and calories. I have never been more exhausted from exercising for 15-20 minutes when utilizing this method. I recently had a guest author post on my blog about this if you would like to read it you can see it here.
Cardio doesn't work for fat lossHere's a method I used with a treadmill. I would put it at the highest inclination and start off at a slow pace to get my heart rate going. Once I was warmed up I would pick up the speed for 30 seconds. Then I would bump it up again for another 30 seconds. Then I would raise it to as fast as I could go for 30 seconds. Then back to a walking pace to catch my breath for about 45 seconds to a minute. Rinse and repeat for 15 minutes. The idea of interval training is in a nutshell training at high and low intensities. It burns off the stored sugars fast and throws you into serious calorie burning. This technique is used by a lot of body builders. It's brutal.
KidVentura
Apr 14 2009, 09:26 PM
I want to lose a lot of weight and have been watching the BL for a few seasons... have noticed that they are always on treadmills (or occasionally on the escalator-like steps), but NEVER on ellipticals. Why? Is there a caloric advantage for treadmills over ellipticals?
Solange36
Apr 15 2009, 08:19 AM
QUOTE (KidVentura @ Apr 14 2009, 10:26 PM)

I want to lose a lot of weight and have been watching the BL for a few seasons... have noticed that they are always on treadmills (or occasionally on the escalator-like steps), but NEVER on ellipticals. Why? Is there a caloric advantage for treadmills over ellipticals?
I don't know the answer to your question, though in the past I have always felt I got a better workout on the elliptical. I used to go back and forth from the treadmill to the elliptical and got a great workout. Unfortunately, I have learned that I can no longer do the elliptical because it aggravates my back problems. My spine doctor said the way the hips move on the elliptical can irritate the lower back if the individual already has problems. So I am unfortunately relegated to the treadmill with no running and no incline. Boring, but better than nothing. Perhaps some of the contestants have similar issues and can't tolerate the elliptical machines.
Schnellvaggio
Apr 15 2009, 08:41 AM
imo...ellipticals can help save knees from the impact caused by running....however, running on a treadmill will burn more calories than a program on the eliptical...atleast that's what my bodybugg tells me....so, I feel the treadmill is the better option for calorie burning (running outside or on a track being even better)
BGSU_Falcon
Apr 15 2009, 10:28 AM
You'll burn more calories on an elliptical (especially using the moving hand posts) and save your knees.
Jazzgod
Apr 15 2009, 10:37 AM
Im love doing my HIIT schedule. On the treadmill, its hard both on my shins and my feet, not to mention the speed change is difficult. The elliptical allowed me personally to work harder longer.
I can see two sides of this though. On the treadmill, you set your speed and keep up with it (unless of course you turn it down your self.) It my help force you to work harder. The elliptical is a little more self directed. You choose your speed.
However, most elliptical machines I've been on have setting to help change the resistance allowing you to get a harder workout. Some treadmills have incline, but not much.
I would also say the first few times on the elliptical killed me. I wasn't used to that "walking though sand" type feeling. My legs were dead.
Caesar4010
Apr 15 2009, 10:49 AM
QUOTE (BGSU_Falcon @ Apr 15 2009, 11:28 AM)

You'll burn more calories on an elliptical (especially using the moving hand posts) and save your knees.
Not necessarily true, especially if you're basing this statement on the calorie burned output of each machine. The elliptical hasn't been around nearly as long as the treadmill, so the calculations for the elliptical are based more in theory and are less likely to be accurate. The treadmill output is generally spot on (or within acceptable margins of error) in most cases while the elliptical output can be off by up to 50% depending on which study you're looking at.
One advantage of the treadmill over the elliptical is that you have a much wider range of options and control over your speed and incline, which are two key components of calorie burn. The treadmill can be programmed for XXXX miles per hour, allowing the user to push him or herself to perform to that level of effort. The elliptical basically "is what it is" on speed based on how the user chooses to push him or herself.
The most important component of any exercise program though should be picking something that you enjoy and will stay with over the long haul. It doesn't much matter if a treadmill burns 5 times the calories of anything else out there if you hate the thought of using one so much that you never hop on it more than once.
BGSU_Falcon
Apr 15 2009, 11:07 AM
QUOTE (Caesar4010 @ Apr 15 2009, 10:49 AM)

Not necessarily true, especially if you're basing this statement on the calorie burned output of each machine. The elliptical hasn't been around nearly as long as the treadmill, so the calculations for the elliptical are based more in theory and are less likely to be accurate. The treadmill output is generally spot on (or within acceptable margins of error) in most cases while the elliptical output can be off by up to 50% depending on which study you're looking at.
I read it in a fitness publication, as well as last week a trainer said the same thing when he discussed which helps you lose weight faster: elliptical, bike, treadmill or row machine.
The_Gooch
Apr 15 2009, 12:12 PM
Running is something one does in real life, that is why I prefer the treadmill.
StephanieAF
Apr 15 2009, 12:42 PM
I can't run on the treadmill, but I can do the eliptical for 30 minutes a day, so it is much better for me! The treadmill kills my knees and shines. As far as which one is better, or burns more calories does it not depend on your heart rate while doing the activity? I work in-between 65% and 85% of my MHR while I workout. I alway estimate my calories burned by my heartrate, is that not correct?
Jazzgod
Apr 15 2009, 01:10 PM
QUOTE (The_Gooch @ Apr 15 2009, 12:12 PM)

Running is something one does in real life, that is why I prefer the treadmill.
You could do the elliptical in real life. Just go out to a beach and start talking really big leaps ;-)
The_Gooch
Apr 15 2009, 01:21 PM
QUOTE (Jazzgod @ Apr 15 2009, 02:10 PM)

You could do the elliptical in real life. Just go out to a beach and start talking really big leaps ;-)
If I did this wearing a canary yellow speedo I wonder what people would find more disturbing?
Jazzgod
Apr 15 2009, 01:32 PM
QUOTE (The_Gooch @ Apr 15 2009, 01:21 PM)

If I did this wearing a canary yellow speedo I wonder what people would find more disturbing?

LOL, I think any speedo would do the trick. I would look like Chris Farley during that Chippendales audition.
Malvina
Apr 15 2009, 02:45 PM
I actually like both equally. I usually do 30-45 min on elliptical followed by the same amount on treadmill. It keeps me from getting bored
XXX1
Apr 15 2009, 06:14 PM
QUOTE (BGSU_Falcon @ Apr 15 2009, 12:07 PM)

I read it in a fitness publication, as well as last week a trainer said the same thing when he discussed which helps you lose weight faster: elliptical, bike, treadmill or row machine.
Well, a trainer, frankly, isn't the best source to get an answer on this from. I'm a trainer and I can't tell you one way or the other what is best. I'd guess he's going by calorie counts on the machine, which as the other poster said, are dead wrong when it comes to ellipticals.
Now if a magazine used a study published in some scientific journal, that is a credible source, and if you have the magazine handy, I'd actually love to know the study it came from so I could read it myself, as people ask this question all the time.
I have read, much like weight training, you'll get better results if you continually switch up machines you're doing cardio with every 3-4 weeks to shock the muscles.
Personally I tell people to do whatever machine they enjoy. For me, I stick with ellipticals cause I'm not a fan of stationary bikes and I don't run much because of bad knees. I can also pump up the resistance level on an elliptical to give my legs a strength workout that helps offset not being able to lift heavy weights.
What really matter the most is if you find a machine you go full out on for an hour and enjoy it is ALWAYS going to be better than something you do half-assed for 30 minutes. Do what you like, cause that's what will get you to keep exercising, which is what's most important.
sadude
Apr 23 2009, 07:16 AM
Good morning everyone. I need some clarification.
When Jillian and Bob have there contestants sprinting on the treadmill for 30-60 seconds does anyone know how long the rest period should be?
I have read that interval training is the best way to burn fat.
Thanks and hope all of you have a great day.
fitdawg
Apr 23 2009, 04:06 PM
Interval training is better for weight loss than just slow, steady activity. That type of training is usually done in ratios of like 3 to 1, etc. Meaning if you sprint 1 minute, you rest 3 minutes before going back to the sprint. I don't know what ratio the contestants are trained at but the factors include your current level of fitness and how hard your sprints are. I too am interested in starting interval training on my treadmill.
l1a2m3b4
Apr 23 2009, 07:25 PM
Ok, maybe this is a stupid question, but oh well. I am 5'5 or 5'6 and thin, 24 yrs old, but just recently exercising on the treadmill. I read an article in SELF about intervals and tried it. After running at different intervals and working up to a 9, I came back down to a walk for a water break. I had chest pains and felt like passing out. Is that normal? Am I pushing myself too hard? Or do I need to get my heart checked?
tkopp
Apr 23 2009, 08:17 PM
is the elyptical just as good as the treadmill.
weav727
Apr 23 2009, 08:32 PM
I was reading a thread about this somewhere else, and people posted that the "calories burned" read out on ellipticals is inaccurate. However, I look at the numbers on the elliptical and on my iPod app Lose It, and they are pretty close. On the treadmill you can burn calories faster, if you run at say 6MPH. For me at my weight, the elliptical at a pretty good clip - 140-150 reps/min - burns around 340 calories in 30 minutes. That is with some resistance though.
wheelsprings
Apr 23 2009, 08:51 PM
QUOTE (weav727 @ Apr 23 2009, 09:32 PM)

I was reading a thread about this somewhere else, and people posted that the "calories burned" read out on ellipticals is inaccurate. However, I look at the numbers on the elliptical and on my iPod app Lose It, and they are pretty close. On the treadmill you can burn calories faster, if you run at say 6MPH. For me at my weight, the elliptical at a pretty good clip - 140-150 reps/min - burns around 340 calories in 30 minutes. That is with some resistance though.
How the heck do you have 140-150 reps/min? Ours only shows speed in terms of 3.5 or 4.5, 4.6, 6.0, etc. (a solid number followed by a .number) - do you mean your heart rate at 140/150? I've never seen an elliptical with a reps/minute reading..(not that I am an expert on ellipticals)...
trynot
Apr 23 2009, 09:40 PM
I would say chest pains are probably something that shouldn't be ignored. I will say, though, that sometimes when I exercise to the point where I'm really winded and sucking air it can kind of hurt to breath. This usually happens when it's cool out though. But if it is more like a pain not associated with breathing hard, definitely ask a health care professional. Especially since you were light headed.
koi_girl
Apr 23 2009, 11:00 PM
I prefer running, but you can certainly increase the resistance on an elliptical to give yourself a good workout, plus less impact on your joints. I cross-train and do some of both since conventional wisdom is to mix up cardio routines so your body doesn't adapt. I never pay attention to the calories burned on either TM or elliptical; I just set personal goals and try to hit them. *This will get moved to the exercise forum no doubt (if you're new, look at the top of the page, there are forums for nutrition, exercise etc...they like to keep this page just for the show). Welcome!
oskiouioui
Apr 24 2009, 12:45 AM
QUOTE (l1a2m3b4 @ Apr 23 2009, 07:25 PM)

Ok, maybe this is a stupid question, but oh well. I am 5'5 or 5'6 and thin, 24 yrs old, but just recently exercising on the treadmill. I read an article in SELF about intervals and tried it. After running at different intervals and working up to a 9, I came back down to a walk for a water break. I had chest pains and felt like passing out. Is that normal? Am I pushing myself too hard? Or do I need to get my heart checked?
Don't mess around with chest pains. Talk to your Doctor about what happened. Better to be safe than dead.
Solange36
Apr 24 2009, 11:16 AM
QUOTE (l1a2m3b4 @ Apr 23 2009, 08:25 PM)

Ok, maybe this is a stupid question, but oh well. I am 5'5 or 5'6 and thin, 24 yrs old, but just recently exercising on the treadmill. I read an article in SELF about intervals and tried it. After running at different intervals and working up to a 9, I came back down to a walk for a water break. I had chest pains and felt like passing out. Is that normal? Am I pushing myself too hard? Or do I need to get my heart checked?
I am a cardiology RN, so I tend to always err on the side of caution. PLEASE go to your doctor and tell him/her what happened. Young people don't generally have diseased hearts like older people, but you can have undiagnosed congenital problems or long QT syndrome. Sometimes the first symptom of a heart problem in a young person is sudden death. You've had a warning sign that you need to explore. More than likely it's nothing serious, perhaps you had a vaso vagal reaction due to going so hard, then immediately going to a slow walk with no cool down in between. Still, you want to be sure before you work out again.
One time I went full out on a bicycle, then suddenly hopped off and sat on a weight bench. All of a sudden, I got very nauseous, then passed out and fell face forward onto the indoor outdoor carpet. Turns out I had a vaso vagal reaction due to not cooling down and I was fine. I had a wicked rug burn on my face which induced a lot of teasing, though.
Please let us know how you're doing after you see your doctor. Good luck.
tululah
Apr 24 2009, 11:38 AM
QUOTE (l1a2m3b4 @ Apr 23 2009, 07:25 PM)

Ok, maybe this is a stupid question, but oh well. I am 5'5 or 5'6 and thin, 24 yrs old, but just recently exercising on the treadmill. I read an article in SELF about intervals and tried it. After running at different intervals and working up to a 9, I came back down to a walk for a water break. I had chest pains and felt like passing out. Is that normal? Am I pushing myself too hard? Or do I need to get my heart checked?
Chest pains should always be addressed with your doctor. As to using the treadmill, if you just started out, a good rule of thumb is " you should be able to carry on a conversation while walking." Sounds like you are trying to do too much too soon. You mention you are thin, have you had your Body Fat /Lean Mass checked? You might want to consult a Personal Trainer as to the proper training for your body type. What is your goal? How is your nutrtional intake. You did well by coming back down to a walk prior to ending your treadmill workout. You never just want to stop if you are walking /running at peak pace, but slowly reduce your movement. You should also take your pulse for 1 minute post work out, then 1 minute later and then 5 minutes later. Knowing your resting heart rate, will help you see how fit you are. If you pulse rate stays elevated after one minute, walk around a little then take it again in a minute. In the end, it might be a good idea to hire a trainer to get you going right right from the start. The fitness mags are good, but a trainer can lay out a program for you, monitor your progress, etc. Then you can follow the mags once you have the basics downs. Faster, thinner is not always better. But exercise is!!!
XXX1
Apr 24 2009, 01:40 PM
QUOTE (weav727 @ Apr 23 2009, 08:32 PM)

I was reading a thread about this somewhere else, and people posted that the "calories burned" read out on ellipticals is inaccurate. However, I look at the numbers on the elliptical and on my iPod app Lose It, and they are pretty close. On the treadmill you can burn calories faster, if you run at say 6MPH. For me at my weight, the elliptical at a pretty good clip - 140-150 reps/min - burns around 340 calories in 30 minutes. That is with some resistance though.
Whatever source you're getting the calories burned from, the problem is they're all going to be inaccurate because they're a newer machine that hasn't been studied enough for anyone to get accurate data for how much they burn. Your iPod app is just using the same data the elliptical's maker is most likely, which is just going to make the same inaccurate assumptions from.
QUOTE (wheelsprings @ Apr 23 2009, 08:51 PM)

How the heck do you have 140-150 reps/min? Ours only shows speed in terms of 3.5 or 4.5, 4.6, 6.0, etc. (a solid number followed by a .number) - do you mean your heart rate at 140/150? I've never seen an elliptical with a reps/minute reading..(not that I am an expert on ellipticals)...
Precor shows RPMs. Life Fitness shows MPH.
Jazzgod
Apr 24 2009, 02:07 PM
The intervals can really be whatever you want them to be. Usually you want the rest period to be equal to or longer than the sprint period (its important to make sure that you are sprinting) some will do 30 and 30 (sec), Ive also seen 1 min sprint, 2 min rest.
I personally love doing a progressive HIIT schedule. I start with a warm up of a few minutes, start with 30/30 sprint/rest, work up to 90 sec of sprinting, and then back down to 30/30 rest/sprint, and then a cool down walk. Takes about 25 min and really gets you sweating. Its best to do it on an elliptical so you can change speeds and actually keep moving during your rests, but some treadmills can change speed quickly and work too.
trynot
Apr 24 2009, 09:06 PM
QUOTE (StephanieAF @ Apr 15 2009, 12:42 PM)

I can't run on the treadmill, but I can do the eliptical for 30 minutes a day, so it is much better for me! The treadmill kills my knees and shines. As far as which one is better, or burns more calories does it not depend on your heart rate while doing the activity? I work in-between 65% and 85% of my MHR while I workout. I alway estimate my calories burned by my heartrate, is that not correct?
This was what I was thinking. I never rely on what the monitors on the machines tell me. I use a heart rate monitor. I guess some small differences between the machines and how you hold your balance on them could make a small difference, but I still think you'll burn the same amount of calories on either if you heart rate is the same.
I do some interval training when I walk outside. I'll run for a minute in the flat areas when my HR comes down after reaching the top of a hill. My shins hate it though. So, for equipment I prefer the elliptical.
Domela
Apr 25 2009, 11:46 PM
QUOTE (wheelsprings @ Apr 23 2009, 09:51 PM)

How the heck do you have 140-150 reps/min? Ours only shows speed in terms of 3.5 or 4.5, 4.6, 6.0, etc. (a solid number followed by a .number) - do you mean your heart rate at 140/150? I've never seen an elliptical with a reps/minute reading..(not that I am an expert on ellipticals)...
The ones at the gym show steps per minute or RPM's with each step registering. I try to get it up to 240 and hold it there for 30 seconds every 5 minutes although my heartrate gets up to the 170's for about a minute after that and man am I really winded. Forget about talking for a while.
With a resistance of 14 out of 16 ( on the settings ) I can burn off 400+ cals in 30 min at this pace.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.